K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty Page 11 of 33 of Rs.17,96,704/- (Rs.4,92,69,179 – 4,74,72,475) was added back to the income of the assessee and brought to tax. 3.6 With regard to the Notional rent on residential property owned

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

capital gains ITA Nos.962 & 963/Bang/2025 K.S. Akhilesh Babu ITA No.964/Bang/2025 K.A. Sujith Chandan ITA No.965/Bang/2025 K.G. Subbarama Setty Page 11 of 33 of Rs.17,96,704/- (Rs.4,92,69,179 – 4,74,72,475) was added back to the income of the assessee and brought to tax. 3.6 With regard to the Notional rent on residential property owned

SHRI BHATKAL RAMARAO PRAKASH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2015-16

Section 48, the language employed is unambiguous. The intention is very clear. When a capital asset is transferred, in order to determine the capital gain from such transfer, what is to be seen is, out of full value of the consideration received or accruing, the cost of acquisition of the asset, the cost of improvement and any expenditure wholly

SMT. PADMA RAJAGOPALAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(3)(5), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015 – 16

capital gains account scheme. The authorities below alleges that, sum of Rs.65 Lacs invested in construction of residential property cannot be allowed to assessee, since property could not be constructed within period of 3 years. There is no finding by authorities below that, delay in construction was attributable to assessee but was beyond the control of assessee since the construction

TYCO FIRE AND SECURITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.270/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Acit, M/S. Tyco Fire & Security India Private Limited, Vs. D-601, Rmz Centennial, Circle - 7(1)(1), Kundalahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 0087 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Rajan Vora, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 27/11.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

capital loss on sale of shares as claimed by the Assessee and hold that the transaction of sale of shares deserves to be ignored and no loss can be determined nor can any short term gain be taxed. Thus the grounds relating to short term loss/gain on sale of shares are treated as partly allowed. 54. Ground No.23

SHRI. KOLA VENKAT RAMA NAIDU,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 6, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

section 2(47)(v) of the Act and computed the short term capital gain arising out of JDA. Further, during the survey, the assessee was asked to produce details of bills/vouchers and documentary proof for the developmental expenditure charged to the P&L account and consequently statement u/s 133A of the Act from the assessee with the declaration

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

LATE SMT.K>LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI.M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY, BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

LATE SMT.K.LEELAVATHY BY L/R SHRI M.THIMMEGOWDA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

M/S PARAMANAND AND SONS,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2020-21

Capital gains' is a loss and the assessee has income assessable under any other head of income, the assessee shall not be entitled to have such loss set off against income under the other head. 5. The provisions of section 72

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

SHRI D.DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Capital Year cost/year expenses cost of gain improv- ement Sale of 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 agricultural (20/01/2009) (6/8/1993) land Total 5325000 199695 0 0 5125305 0 Sale of Agricultural land – Cost : 83721*(582/244) = 199695 Exempt U/S : 5325000 10.2 Later the AO issued a Questionnaire on 8.1.2014 seeking details of property sold during the FY 2008-09 as follows

DEV KUMAR ROY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

capital gains taxation, it is exempt under sec.47(iii) of the IT Act, 1961. The case of the Revenue is that a company cannot make a gift and also seen if it is treated as a gift, it is not eligible for exemption provided under sec.47(iii), as correct provision of law applies to the case of the assessee

SRI JOSEPH K.ZACHARIAH ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No.879/Bang/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15

capital gain must be in India. He also relied on the decision of the ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT v. Jai Kumar Gupta HUF, ITA No.5303/Mum/2017 AY 2013-14, order dated 28.2.2019 and decision of ITAT Bangalore in the case of Mrs. Suma v. ITO, ITA No.568/Bang/2018 for AY 2006-07, order dated 20.7.2018. It was held

PRAKASH BARE,BENGALURU vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(2)(1), KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year :2020-21

72,50,000/- and computation of capital gain from the ITR is reproduced by the AO. From the observation of the details of the capital gain computation sheet, a notice under section

ESSAE TERAOKA LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

72,70,089. Thus there is a capital gain to the extent of Rs.49,98,089 in the hands of the assessee company for the A.Y. 2005-06. As the joint development agreement was entered in the F.Y. 2004-05, the capital gain has to be taxed for the Assessment Year 2005-06 as per the judgement

ITO vs. R. SRINIVAS,

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee's C

capital gains on the C.O. No.69/Bang/2014 ground that the entire gains have been invested in the purchase of site and construction of a new residential property. In respect of his claim for exemption under Section 54 / 54F of the Act, the assessee claims to have purchased a site for Rs.52,08,174 on 3.4.2008 within 3 months of the sale